Humans have altered Earth so much that scientists say a new epoch in the planet's geologic history has begun. Say goodbye to the 10,000-year-old Holocene Epoch and hello to the Anthropocene.

Among the major changes heralding this two-century-old man-made epoch:

Vastly altered sediment erosion and deposition patterns. Major disturbances to the carbon cycle and global temperature. Wholesale changes in biology, from altered flowering times to new migration patterns. Acidification of the ocean, which threatens tiny marine life that forms the bottom of the food chain.

The idea, first suggested in 2000 by Nobel Prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen, has gained steam with two new scientific papers that call for official recognition of the shift...

This weekend I was working on a roof, it was 8F degrees and the wind was blowing at about 30 MPH and gust of 50 MPH with a little freezing mist that felt like glass shards. So right now I'm a big fan of global warming.

"EXPERTS" have been saying the sky is falling for nearly all of recorded history, it's acid rain, it's the little ice age, it's the hole in the ozone, it global warming, polar shift, asteroids, you name it, it's always something. While this article wasn't specifically about Gore,Al Warming it still falls into that doomsday, we're going to hell in a hand-basket fear mongering these expert spew in order to secure research funding. You can't get grants if everything is ok and there is nothing to study.

Here is my question that no one ever answers, if Global Warming is a new man made ill of the planet ... then what the hell happened to the Bering land bridge that connected modern day USA and Russia? It's now 100's of feet under water, what made the ice melt to raise sea levels that much ... regular global cycles or primitive SUV's?

BTW Mount Pinatubo's eruption (1991) released more green house gases into the atmosphere in one day than has man in all of his walking up right history, and Pinatubo wasn't the biggest eruption in the 20th century, that would be Katmai-Novarupta in 1912 both many, many times smaller than Krakatau in 1883 ... just food for thought.

This weekend I was working on a roof, it was 8F degrees and the wind was blowing at about 30 MPH and gust of 50 MPH with a little freezing mist that felt like glass shards. So right now I'm a big fan of global warming.

"EXPERTS" have been saying the sky is falling for nearly all of recorded history, it's acid rain, it's the little ice age, it's the hole in the ozone, it global warming, polar shift, asteroids, you name it, it's always something. While this article wasn't specifically about Gore,Al Warming it still falls into that doomsday, we're going to hell in a hand-basket fear mongering these expert spew in order to secure research funding. You can't get grants if everything is ok and there is nothing to study.

I don't really understand politicizing a scientific discussion, but then again conservatives have been turning "scientific" discussions into "religious" discussions for centuries.

Here is my question that no one ever answers, if Global Warming is a new man made ill of the planet ... then what the hell happened to the Bering land bridge that connected modern day USA and Russia? It's now 100's of feet under water, what made the ice melt to raise sea levels that much ... regular global cycles or primitive SUV's?

The "Bering land bridge" wasn't "land" it was ice. I've never heard any "scientific" discussion that disavows the natural cycles of Earth's climate. Of course, who knows if any such ice bridge ever existed or if the Native Americans' ancestors really did come from Asia? It's science, right?

BTW Mount Pinatubo's eruption (1991) released more green house gases into the atmosphere in one day than has man in all of his walking up right history, and Pinatubo wasn't the biggest eruption in the 20th century, that would be Katmai-Novarupta in 1912 both many, many times smaller than Krakatau in 1883 ... just food for thought.

It mentions major disturbances global temperatures and has a link to "Top 10 Surprising Results of Global Warming" ergo it brings global warming into the discussion.

Quote

I don't really understand politicizing a scientific discussion, but then again conservatives have been turning "scientific" discussions into "religious" discussions for centuries.

Because it's rare that scientific discussion is actually based in science.

Quote

The "Bering land bridge" wasn't "land" it was ice. I've never heard any "scientific" discussion that disavows the natural cycles of Earth's climate. Of course, who knows if any such ice bridge ever existed or if the Native Americans' ancestors really did come from Asia? It's science, right?

The question remains, what caused the earth to warm 10,000 year ago? Who was to blame? And if not blame is to be had, then why is todays warming (if there really is any) to blame on humans?

The question remains, what caused the earth to warm 10,000 year ago? Who was to blame? And if not blame is to be had, then why is todays warming (if there really is any) to blame on humans?

That wasn't the question. The question was: "...what the hell happened to the Bering land bridge that connected modern day USA and Russia?" To which I responded: "...ice." Obviously we are not in an ice age, and if one were to adhere to commonly believed science, there were several "ice ages" and the last was an ice age that ended 10 thousand years ago.

It mentions major disturbances global temperatures and has a link to "Top 10 Surprising Results of Global Warming" ergo it brings global warming into the discussion.

It also has a link to '10 best ways to destroy the planet' one of which is achieved by using a lightbulb. I really don't think that that should count at all as a counter argument!

Well maybe just a little...

Anyways, Epoch seems to be my buzz word for the day...

Sure it has nothing to do with the discussion, but hey I'm here to help...

ON TOPIC, I don't see how there can be any doubt that mankind is affecting global environments on a small scale: That mountain in the way of my new road, no problem, boom, there goes mountain [or more likely, bore a hole through it] Heavy excavation of soil and massive removal of forest lands is going to affect how that local area's environment works. The debate for me is more about how this affects the bigger picture, and that's where I get a bit less convinced.

There is a scientific basis for this particular discussion, in that by studying soil samples and sediment levels, you can thereby guess environmental trends, but like most science things do seem to stay up in the air in terms of certainty.

So yeah, we may be getting to the stage where we are entering a new 'age' but I don't think we be there yet.

... Of course, who knows if any such ice bridge ever existed or if the Native Americans' ancestors really did come from Asia? ....

I've heard the latest hot suggestion is a route similar to the one Eric the Red might have taken a considerable time span later: somehow from the European continent along the southern coast of Greenland to North America, probably via an ice shelf at the coasts.

A couple of words about global warming: For the whole system earth it is rather unimportant, if the next warm period comes a couple of (tens) of thousands years earlier or later. We, as humankind, might think different about this, as we, like every being on this planet, have to “run fast in order to hold the position”. Meaning we are very likely to cope with all changes in the predictable future, (like raising sea levels, desertification in some parts of the world, ill-adapted crops for changing environments, etc.), but we have to be aware that this costs a lot of effort and we need to recognize the changes early.

The main problem might be the awkward idea established a long time ago, that nature “is in balance”. Hardly everything really is. On a small scale, one might better consider natural systems to be in some kind of erratic oscillation mode. And they better be, because that is exactly what makes them resistant to external changes (new hip word: resilience). So if we imagine a system as a sort of swinging rubber surface and we throw a big ball of CO2 caused by natural volcanic activity onto it (to stay with the former example), the surface will stretch in one direction and will possibly not snap, but the oscillation, and thus stability, will be considerably less. I think that a poor conclusion is: Hey, it took the big one, so why not throw our own stuff in there too!

True, the system is likely to be fed up by natural means sometime, but it should be in our own interest to keep that point as far in the future as possible, as we have more important things to deal with… for example completing my Ed Wood collection sometime.

I have no problem with the thesis that human activity is dramatically affecting the environment, but announcing we are entering a new geologic epoch after 200 years of data seems a bit like pronouncing a movie a masterpiece after the opening credits are done rolling. It sounds more like rhetoric than science. And the use of rhetoric by scientists is an invitation to the public to discount their findings for bias.

Logged

"The basic plot is that Donna Speir and Hope Marie Carlton, the two undercover DEA agent Playboy Playmates from the last movie, are still running around in jungle shorts, cowboy boots and spaghetti strap T-shirts, firing their machine guns at drug smugglers, Filipino communist guerrillas, and corrupt federal agents while their two friends, Lisa London and Miss May 1984 Patty Duffek, lounge around the pool a lot and talk on speaker phones that look like fax machines."-Joe Bob on SAVAGE BEACH

I have no problem with the thesis that human activity is dramatically affecting the environment, but announcing we are entering a new geologic epoch after 200 years of data seems a bit like pronouncing a movie a masterpiece after the opening credits are done rolling. It sounds more like rhetoric than science. And the use of rhetoric by scientists is an invitation to the public to discount their findings for bias.

I have no problem with the thesis that human activity is dramatically affecting the environment, but announcing we are entering a new geologic epoch after 200 years of data seems a bit like pronouncing a movie a masterpiece after the opening credits are done rolling. It sounds more like rhetoric than science. And the use of rhetoric by scientists is an invitation to the public to discount their findings for bias.

If you believe in anything Science has had to offer, hell, they didn't even have appendectomies two hundred years ago... now, having myself undergone the procedure, let me assure you that it worked. Through the scientific method, we (human beings, y'know, scientists and the rest of us) learn new things all the time. Currently, scientists are leaning towards categorizing our current age as a new epoch... who do you think labeled the last 4 billion years into epochs?

The earth was here loong before we were...and irt will STILL be here long after we are dead and gone. I think we,as humans, place too much importance on our place in the universe.

The concern with significant weather change is not about preserving the rock we're clinging to; it's about preserving our biosphere. So, if a misanthrope, should we also neglect all of the other living things on the planet that will be "dead" along with us? Misanthropy is not an excuse for disinterest.

I have no problem with the thesis that human activity is dramatically affecting the environment, but announcing we are entering a new geologic epoch after 200 years of data seems a bit like pronouncing a movie a masterpiece after the opening credits are done rolling. It sounds more like rhetoric than science. And the use of rhetoric by scientists is an invitation to the public to discount their findings for bias.

If you believe in anything Science has had to offer, hell, they didn't even have appendectomies two hundred years ago... now, having myself undergone the procedure, let me assure you that it worked. Through the scientific method, we (human beings, y'know, scientists and the rest of us) learn new things all the time. Currently, scientists are leaning towards categorizing our current age as a new epoch... who do you think labeled the last 4 billion years into epochs?

Don't misunderstand me (not sure that you did, but for the sake of clarity...)

I'm not commenting on the underlying facts relied upon by the researchers, which I have no reason to doubt, but only on a strategy I presume they are using to present those facts---one that I think is counterproductive to their cause.

In my mind the strategy backfires, because the public is quick to impute improper bias to Scientist when they catch any sniff of rhetoric buried inside the facts. The public expects Scientist to be dispassionate; if he's perceived as having a political agenda, many will disregard his conclusions, whether they're sound or not.

In the article, the authors themselves describe the epochal characterization as "a vivid yet informal metaphor of global environmental change." To me, the metaphor seems clearly designed to raise alarm---our dirty coal plants and SUV's have affected the planet so much we've forced it into a new damn EPOCH, fer Chrissakes.

Geologists only pronounce epochs after they've examined huge amounts of data. The Holocene epoch lasted for 10,000 years. Mankind could change it's behavior within a few generations, making the new Anthropocene epoch last only for 300 years---more of a geologic blip than an epoch. The scientist quoted at the end of the article says it better: "A geologist from the far distant future almost surely would draw a new line, and begin using a new name, where and when our impacts show up."

For the record, as a scientific layman, I believe: 1. global environmental change is happening, 2. human activity is almost certainly the cause, 3. the worst case scenarios almost certainly won't come to pass, 4. we can, and should, devote our energies to developing cleaner energy sources to combat the problem.

Logged

"The basic plot is that Donna Speir and Hope Marie Carlton, the two undercover DEA agent Playboy Playmates from the last movie, are still running around in jungle shorts, cowboy boots and spaghetti strap T-shirts, firing their machine guns at drug smugglers, Filipino communist guerrillas, and corrupt federal agents while their two friends, Lisa London and Miss May 1984 Patty Duffek, lounge around the pool a lot and talk on speaker phones that look like fax machines."-Joe Bob on SAVAGE BEACH

Global climate change has been going on since there was a globe and climate, I think that human activity has certainly influenced this change, sped it up and it may have unpleasant consequences for us. The optimist in me likes to think that in the next 50 to 200 years we will work together to find solutions to all these global problems and a new age of peace and prosperity will come to pass. The pessimist in me believes that humans as the dominant species of life on Earth will be extinct in 1000 years or so. What I think will actually happen in the next 1000 years is somewhere between these 2 extremes. The problem that I see with Global warming and other controversial scientific theories is not the science itself, it's the way it's presented to the rest of us. A scientist, or group of scientists spends years doing research, collecting data, formulates a theory, and publishes. (I realize that a lot of these guys and gals may spin the facts to get a grant or two) All this work is then reduced to a series of 30 second news spots. A scientist puts forward the theory that the average global temperature is rising, that his data suggests that human activity may be main reason for this, that if it continues there may be adverse changes in the global climate. The news media steps in, due to the need to sell papers or get ratings years of work is reduced to this, "Scientists today said that the temperature of the world is rising and that if this trend continues the ice caps will melt causing coastal flooding, drought, wide spread famine, and the possible end of civilization, film at 11:00.At 11:00 they tell of a scientist who said that melting ice caps will change ocean currents and cause a new ice age. In the next 6 months we get a major Hollywood movie and at least 6 on Sci-Fi channel dealing with this topic in a superficial and silly fashion. (and the Sci-Fi channel movies will just be awful) This is why I believe that a thoughtful, reasonable approach and solution to these problems is difficult, unless you have the time and the inclination all you will see is sensationalism and hysteria.

« Last Edit: February 02, 2008, 01:36:05 PM by DENNIS »

Logged

Science claims that hydrogen, because there is so much of it, is the building block of the universe, I dispute this, there is plenty more stupidity, and that is the building block of the universe. Frank Zappa

Totally agree, Dennis. The tone of the global warming debate is deplorable. It's a scientific question that's been turned into a political question, and both sides release misleading, out-of-context information to make their political points. I think both sides generally look bad in the media. Doing your own research to figure out what's actually going on is too much for most people, so Al Gore and Rush Limbaugh get to set the terms of the debate. The truth is somewhere in between, where it usually is.

Logged

"The basic plot is that Donna Speir and Hope Marie Carlton, the two undercover DEA agent Playboy Playmates from the last movie, are still running around in jungle shorts, cowboy boots and spaghetti strap T-shirts, firing their machine guns at drug smugglers, Filipino communist guerrillas, and corrupt federal agents while their two friends, Lisa London and Miss May 1984 Patty Duffek, lounge around the pool a lot and talk on speaker phones that look like fax machines."-Joe Bob on SAVAGE BEACH

The earth was here loong before we were...and irt will STILL be here long after we are dead and gone. I think we,as humans, place too much importance on our place in the universe.

The concern with significant weather change is not about preserving the rock we're clinging to; it's about preserving our biosphere. So, if a misanthrope, should we also neglect all of the other living things on the planet that will be "dead" along with us? Misanthropy is not an excuse for disinterest. [/quote]

No,it's not a good excuse...but it's the only one I have. It's just my way of accepting a seemingly hopeless situation,from a personal standpoint, on a problem that I can't solve. I have a tendency (not an admirable one,I'll admit) of saying either 'The hell with it.","I don't care." or some lame quasi -philisophical mumbo jumbo to deal with things I can't correct or don't understand.